girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Secret Blueprints
The comments below were archived from the original Secret Blueprints talk page. The next step, bis It's not at all clear to me that the copyright issue has been satisfactorily solved. I don't see that the various pages have actually been paraphrased, and taking all the pages together it seems we have basically posted the text of the entire work verbatim. However, I agree that to all appearances the Foglios do not mind this use of their work, and I don't want to lose the work Corgi and Donovan Ravenhull have done. Given the existence of the "Mad:" namespace as an alternative place for content, I thought as a compromise we might (mis? ab?)use it by moving the original text articles to Mad: and have what's in the main namespace just be description. This also tends to reinforce the fact that this is not normal content (in this case, to be updated). I was planning to do this en mass for the individual pages with a clank, but I haven't gotten it working yet. I did start with the Introduction, Mad:The Secret Blueprints, Vol. I, but now Mnen has moved it back, so obviously this isn't as uncontroversial as I thought. I also thought it would be worthwhile to make the individual pages subpages of the Introduction since that automatically creates backward links and generally (if subtly) indicates that they are all part of the same larger work. ? Zarchne 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC); updated 05:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) :To use my high-school debate terminology of oh-so-long-ago, the plan does not meet the need. If it's a copyvio in the main namespace, it's a copyvio in the Mad: namespace as well. That's what copyright is all about: protect the author's equities from damage in any other medium. Moving the text to Mad: just obfuscates the situation without resolving it. The correct solution must be to get some clarity from the Foglios, if there's anyone whose e-mail they actually read and respond to (never heard an answer back on mine). That is both necessary and sufficient, and it avoids further muddying the waters as to just what Mad: is good for -- which are muddy to the point of opaqueness already. -- that old bearded guy 13:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC) :Right -- the copyright violation doesn't go away just because we move a file into a different folder. Maybe someone could just ask for permission? Seems like they'd be agreeable to letting us host these documents for historical purposes. However, if it turns into a "we have to ask our attorney if that's okay", we're better off taking them down rather than costing the Foglios money. :The reason I feel we should take a strong stand against this now is that when the RPG is finally published, this is going to be a major issue. We absolutely do not want the wiki to hurt sales of the RPG. We're going to have to be very careful about what sort of information we include and how we include it. --mnenyver 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC) ::I thought we could agree that we don't want it to be the case that if all the Secret Blueprints hosted here were suddenly deleted that it would negatively impact the normal articles. By moving them to Mad: and generally failing to acknowledge the existence of Mad: (as I intended from its creation) in the main namespace (Has-Mad points to /Mad) we accomplish this. As to the purpose of Mad:, that is what Forum:Mad about you. was created to discuss. ?Zarchne 21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC) The next step? Now that this appears to be here to stay (after our debate about 'copying'), shall I go through and start estabishing wiki-links within each article. I'm offering so as to give you a little break, Corgi. I also suggest an 'invisible' note at the beginning of each page that would remind anybody who goes to edit them that these are based on an out of date source and as such do not need to be updated with new info. This would supplement the already existing note. -- Donovan Ravenhull 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC) : Heh, thanks, Donovan. I keep getting into pages that keep me from leaving the PC I started on for at least an extra hour past when I needed to leave. I was debating links as I was moving stuff; I don't really see why not. The page titles can be linked to the current articles on the characters, for one. As far as inadvertent updates - there's always 'revert'. Corgi 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Original Discussion Hm. We might want to ask the Foglio's if this infromation is alright to be reprinted here. I've never heard why they took it off of the airship website. In anycase, this page is pretty hefty. I was expecting more like a page just explain what the secret blueprints are, and then link to a full text dump. --Stfrn 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC) :I thought they had taken it down because it's now so out-dated. And you're right. We really should ask permission to have this up. But we should have it somewhere, although perhaps this Wiki isn't the best place. Not being an expert on copyright law, I really couldn't say. I'm just hopping we can put it up somewhere so we can point all the newbies at it. -Evaneyreddeman 15:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC) :I think it's ok for the Secret Blueprints to be reprinted here, since the Foglios didn't have a problem with the Wayback version being linked to off the yahoo group. Moreover, there isn't anywhere on the web where the Blueprints can be accessed more legibly than the Wayback Machine, so I think it provides a useful service. --User:Vikingkingq I think the biggest issue is that that appears (I've never seen the origional to compare) to be a verbatum copy of them. This article should be a summery of what it is and what in it. The information, if it is still valid, needs to distributed among the various articles. In the end, this article itself should only be a couple of pages long, but have a external ref to the wayback 'origional'. -- Donovan Ravenhull 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC) :The issue with that is that the Wayback original is not particularly legible/easy to read, so I think posting it verbatim would be hosting a resource that's not really found anywhere else. --User:Vikingkingq Ah, here's the conversation I was looking for. Just chiming in here and just to reiterate -- posting anything whole and verbatim does violate a few rules and laws, unfortunately. As cool as having all of this reposted is, we just can't do it. If the Foglios are cool with this, there's no problem, but they do have to give permission for something like this. Otherwise, some reasonable quotes and paraphrasing will do just fine for us. --mnenyver 03:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ::Yes, it might be prudent to downsize these until the copyright situation is clarified. I'd been having the same concerns. The old, full-size versions of the various SB files can easily be reconstituted (since Wiki keeps those old versions in the archives) if and when the Foglios give explicit permission. -- that old bearded guy 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) :::Yeah, very easily fixed. We should always err on the side of politeness, I feel. This is somebody else's IP here, not ours. :) --mnenyver 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Image sizes It might be a good idea to put an upper limit on some of the illustrations on this page (and it's new subs). Some of them are overlapping into the next section. Also, I would like to appologize in that I am now noticing that you (Corgi) are still editing and I may have disrupted your efforts. --Donovan Ravenhull 08:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC) : One of two good reasons I broke down the whole thing into separate pages - that overlap was makin' me nuts. :) Corgi 10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Also Ashcan is an archaic term for a trashcan. User:Vikingkingq PDF Availability -- Propose Deletion Now that the pdf is available (finally! woohoo!) I move to delete this and related articles, to be replaced with very, very short summaries. (And yes, I saw your message on the Yahoo group, Z. I've been feeling guilty too.) I propose deletion rather than edit because deleting also removes all previous incarnations of a file. For copyright purposes, if the old versions are still accessible here, we're still in violation. And yeah, I still maintain that this falls under the "in whole" clause. --mnenyver 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC) :I am going to stand in agreement for the deletion. The rationization for having the word-for-word was because it wasn't available, but now... --Donovan Ravenhull 23:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) ::I disagree. Or replace with a link to the Wayback version. These pages being accessible here serves those who aren't Truefans™, and thus are unlikely to buy the pdf, even though that would be preferable. These pages show the depth of thought and plot that makes GG outstanding, and thus could serve to help make casual readers into Truefans™, and therefore more likely to pay for things like the pdf, the volumes (print or pdf versions), and the buttons and other such merchandise. To me it's like the web comics vs. the collections, you can read the web version for free, but it's not anything like having the volumes available. The archival way the Blueprints are presented here isn't anything like what the pdf experience is like, for the pages I previewed on DriveThru. I see these pages filling the same free-preview niche for the Blueprints pdf, that the webcomics serve for the volumes. If, however you decide that deletion is required, consider leaving the Wayback link, for those who aren't as well-steeped in the history to have access to. Of course, the very exsistence of the Wayback version prooves deleting this won't solve the problem of the Blueprints being loose on the net. -Darkheart 14:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) :::I don't think it's merely an issue of the Blueprints being loose on the net. We're a pretty central, easily recognizable source with some sort of quasi-authoritative position (as evidenced by people linking to us in Yahoo posts when they need to offer support for an argument). If we have the full text of the Blueprints, we're in competition. As for the Blueprints here mirroring the main comic in its role as "advertising" for the print versions, that's SF's call, not ours. -Evaneyreddeman 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC) New ToC Hmm. I wonder if making the Table of Contents linkable to articles in the wiki is a bit confusing. It makes it seem like the text on the linked pages is the same as the Secret Blueprints. --mnenyver 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC) : I can see your point, but I think it's pretty obvious if they follow the links that it's not (and they should go buy their own copies anyway). -- Corgi 02:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)